Opinion
C. A. 1:23-4009-MGL-SVH
08-28-2023
Maurice L. Williams, #23454-058, Petitioner, v. Warden Joseph, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Maurice L. Williams (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, is a federal inmate incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina, in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. He filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the petition in this case without requiring the respondent to file an answer.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On March 31, 2010, a jury in the Southern District of Ohio found Plaintiff guilty of knowingly, willfully intentionally, and unlawfully engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(a); knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully combining, conspiring, confederating, and agreeing with others, both known and unknown, to distribute or possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully combining, conspiring, confederating, and agreeing with others, both known and unknown, to distribute or possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and 26 counts of knowingly and intentionally using a communication facility in committing or in causing or facilitating the commission of an act constituting a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. United States v. Williams, Case No. 2:08-cr-186-EAS-NMK, ECF No. 979 (S.D. Oh.). On October 14, 2010, the district court sentenced Petitioner to 30 years in prison and five years of supervised release. Id. at ECF No. 1241; ECF No. 1 at 1, 2. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”), which affirmed the district court's decision on February 14, 2012. [ECF No. 1 at 2]; United States v. Williams, Case No. 10-4326 (6th Cir. 2012). Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court that was denied on November 13, 2012. Id. at 3. He subsequently filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, that the court denied on September 28, 2015. Id. at 3-4; United States v. Williams, Case No. 2:08-cr-186-EAS-NMK, ECF No. 1522 (S.D. Oh.). Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a reduction of sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. Id. at ECF No. 1593. On February 17, 2021, the district court granted Petitioner's motion, reducing his custodial sentence from 30 to 25 years. Id. at 1595. On June 10, 2021, and March 15, 2022, Petitioner filed motions for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Id. at ECF No. 1597, 1604. The district court denied the motions on September 26, 2022, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Id. at ECF No. 1615, aff'd by United States v. Williams, Case No. 22-3886 (6th Cir. May 25, 2023).
The jury found the conspiracy involved quantities of at least five kilograms of cocaine. [ECF No. 979 at 3].
The jury found the conspiracy involved quantities of at least 50 kilograms of marijuana. [ECF No. 979 at 5].
Petitioner filed the instant petition, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for constructive possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). [ECF No. 1 at 6]. He claims he was not in proximity to where the gun was found and that it was not “established and/or proven that [he] knew of the gun's presence at the premises where it was located or that [he] had the power to exercise dominion and control over the gun or owned the location.” Id. He further states there was “[n]o evidence presented to link [him] to [the] gun.” Id.
Petitioner asserts the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to challenge his conviction or sentence because his “motion is not based on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral review by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Id. at 4. He admits he did not present this argument in a prior appeal because his attorney failed to raise the issue and there was no case law in support of his argument during his appeal period. Id. at 7. He cites United States v. Hall, 858 F.3d 254, 259 (4th Cir. 2017), as supporting his argument. [ECF No. 1-1 at 1]. He requests his sentence be vacated and that he be resentenced without the § 924(c)(1)(A) violation. [ECF No. 1 at 7].
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of this petition pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Court,the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and other habeas corpus statutes. Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
The Rules Governing Section 2254 are applicable to habeas actions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b).
B. Analysis
“[I]t is well established that defendants convicted in federal court are obliged to seek habeas relief from their convictions and sentences through § 2255.” Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997)). In contrast, a motion filed under § 2241 is typically used to challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed. See In re Vial, 115 F.3d at 1194 n.5. A petitioner cannot challenge his federal conviction and sentence under § 2241 unless he can satisfy the § 2255 saving clause as follows:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it
also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Rice, 617 F.3d at 807 (finding court lacked jurisdiction over § 2241 petition outside saving clause).
Petitioner argues § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. He admits, and the record reflects, that he previously pursued a § 2255 motion. United States v. Williams, Case No. 2:08-cr-186-EAS-NMK, ECF No. 1522 (S.D. Oh.).
The Supreme Court recently considered applicability of the saving clause in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. __, 143 S.Ct. 1857 (2023), and held § 2255(e) does not allow a prisoner to circumvent the restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions in the AEDPA by filing a § 2241 habeas petition. Id., 143 S.Ct. at 1864-77. The court explained the saving clause is applicable in circumstances where the sentencing court was dissolved, “when it is not practicable for the prisoner to have his motion determined in the trial court because of his inability to be present at the hearing, or for other reasons,” and “when a prisoner challenges ‘the legality of his detention' without attacking the validity of his sentence,” such as when “a prisoner might wish to argue that he is being detained in a place or manner not authorized by the sentence, that he has unlawfully been denied parole or good-time credits, or that an administrative sanction affecting the conditions of his detention is illegal.” Id. at 1866-67 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[T]he saving clause preserves recourse to § 2241” in only those specific types of cases. Id. at 1868.
The Court's holding in Jones forecloses Petitioner's argument, as he is attempting the circumvent the AEDPA's prohibition of second or successive § 2255 petitions by bringing a petition under § 2241. Accordingly, the undersigned finds the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's § 2241 petition, as he cannot show that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Clark v. Leu, 2023 WL 4676854 (4th Cir. 2023) (finding no reversible error in the district court's dismissal of the petition based on application of Jones). Accordingly, the petition is subject to summary dismissal.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
The undersigned recommends the court dismiss the petition in the above-captioned case without prejudice and without requiring the respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).